Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Johnstone (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William W. Johnstone[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedurally closed AfD previously, PROD contested. No claim to notability under WP:NAUTHOR, appears to fail WP:GNG as well. The guide for notability is not what authors write, it is what reliable sources write about the author. Ifnord (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are no independent sources in the article (and appear not to have been even when the lists of books were included), they do WP:NEXIST, eg 'William W. Johnstone - At a turning point with new book', by Sidney Williams in The Town Talk (Alexandria, Louisiana) 6 May 1995, pp C1 and C3 [1]; 3 paras in 'Great books let readers care about the characters', by Jan Jeffus, in The Town Talk (Alexandria, Louisiana) 16 March 1997, [2]; 1 para in 'Romance and Westerns' by Jacque Hillman in The Jackson Sun (Jackson, Tennessee) 4 February 1995, p 5B [3]; a Kirkus Review of What The Heart Knows [4]; 22 lines of quote, with comment, in a review of The Defense of Elitism in the Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 26 December 1994 [5]. I would say he does meet WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Can you explain which of the four points of author notability that meets?
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - A bare few local-paper book reviews do not constitute "widely cited".
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. - Pulp westerns are not "a significant new concept, theory or technique".
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - Again I can't see how this applies.
  4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - There are neither monuments, nor exhibitions, nor "significant critical attention" (again a bare few local-paper book reviews are not "significant"), and I have not found any galleries or museums featuring Johnstone's works.

Laugh last person to propose this got badfaith accused of being a sockpuppet because admins like making that badfaith when they can't discuss reasonably. Cue the abuseradmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C617:3E07:CF8B:8BAD:8AE0:1B34 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: #3, "The person has created .. a significant or well-known .. collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." As per reviews noted above. (PS I am not an admin.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple point of order - Franklin W. Dixon is far more notable and he DOESN'T EXIST despite being the origin for the obviously-notable The Hardy Boys, which spawned not just a longrunning book franchise but television series and spinoff/parody works, as well as being an integral part of the growth of the "kid detective" literary/television trope (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KidDetective). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it is irrelevant what other articles exist or don't exist. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.
The article Franklin W. Dixon does exist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. In addition, Johnstone's books have kept selling after his death, are cited as exemplars of '80s pulp ("It purred with pleasure — and hissed with evil!") and appear to have been the springboard for his niece's... interesting writing career. There might not be much more to say than the article currently does, but there's enough to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.